Quote: As for being licensed by Chrysler, that does not mean it is ethical to reproduce a broadcast sheet, it only means Chrysler has given you their rights to produce something that they did in the past without having to worry about being sued by Chrysler. ___________________________________________ Then to use "your" logic, Chrylser by showing willingness to licence a broadcast sheet under conditions is either directly or indirectly acting unethically.
The poll isnt neutral based in its wording. Not at all. One can only read the questions to know the poster feels on the subject. That is readily apparant. Reword in a more neutral way then allow the people to vote on it.
1. Should an authorized Chrysler distributor who has been provided legitmate documentation of the original buildsheet be allowed to reproduce that buildsheet, or that buildsheet showing a watermark that determines its reproduction status.
There are alot better ways to neutralize these questions besides wording in a way to get a predetermined answer.
Thats like asking should a person who is convicted of a crime serve jail time. That question is worded to elicit a simple answer YES!
The more informative questionaire would ask. 1. What kind of crime? 2. What was the severity of the crime? 3. Was it under extreme durress? 4. Was it a first time offense? 5. Was it a simple misdomeanor?
What I am saying is the original question of "Should a person convicted of a crime serve jail time?" is simply directed to elicit the answer of yes.
Quote: you think the availability of "reproduction broadcast sheets" undermines the integrity and reputation of those involved with reproducing them? Users may choose only one (110 total votes) Yes 56 51%
No 54 49%
____________________________________________
Clearly the sites members are evenly split on this issue. This despite the wording thats intended to elicit a certain response. There is no distinct verdict on this issue. With a 110 members voting its virtually a dead heat. So we gentlemen are at a stand still still. An intrigueiing issue we have here. "
There are no good guys, there are no bad guys, theres just you and me and we just disagree."
I am not a professional poll-maker. I tried to word that question as neutral and unbiased as possible while trying to be general. The question needed to be asked as previous posts indicated that those folks that didn't feel that a repro BS sheet should be made available ALSO felt that a reproducer's integrity and reputation would suffer from their manufacture. And I don't see how the example question of "Should a person convicted of a crime serve jail time?" you used to illustrate your point is related to how I worded the question about repro BC sheets UNLESS you are pre-dispositioned to feel that someone who reproduces BC sheets is committing a criminal, fraudulent, or morally corrupt act? If you DO NOT feel that way (or are NOT so pre-dispositioned) , you'd answer "NO" because you'd feel there is no immoral, criminal, or fraudulant connection in the reproduction of broadcast sheets. The "dead heat" you speak of regarding the poll results I feel proves this and the validity of the question. You could certainly create your own poll thread with wording you find more acceptable (or even add your additional poll questions to this thread) if you feel differently.
I have not opined publicly one way or the other on this subject yet you have me pegged as an adversary. Actually, I think Dave's motives are pretty clear and reasonable here, although I am not so sure about the way he presents his position at times. Unfortunately, other people's motives may not be so clear.
I am not against repro BC sheets if there exists an original, however I am more comfortable with a reproduction sheet that has an identifying watermark or other identifying mark or code or whatever. It is a legitimate concern that we must trust those reproducing broadcast sheets that they would, in fact, only reproduce a sheet if an original exists and that the reproducer would verify this original sheet carefully before making the new broadcast. Heck, if BC sheets ARE to be reproduced I would like a stand-up, trustworthy guy like Dave to make them. At least there appears to be accountability and transparency with Dave and his company. He has stated he has a licensing agreement with Chrysler regarding BC sheets and has said he would only even consider reproducing a broadcast sheet strictly in cases where an original exists.
Dave, have you responded to the pertinent questions regarding the possible making of watermarked/identified reproductions of broadcast sheets or have I missed it? Would you consider reproducing a sheet and adding some identifying characteristic to differentiate it from the original and as a reproduction?
As others have previously said, outright fakes will continue to be made (perhaps by unscrupulous individuals) with or without the intent to defraud but that isn't the topic of this discussion, so I thought.
